Close to 300 people turned out for the public information meeting, which showed their pregame priorities ahead of the kickoff of the Packers vs. Vikings game on Monday Night football.

Supporters of the proposal came away with the knowledge that the projections for increased traffic congestion in the less-costly options were based on a 60-mph speed over the Hoan. The speed limit is 50.

Opponents focused on the safety questions, the cost, and their perceptions that the bike and pedestrian lane would get little use for much of the year.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation hosted the meeting to share information and gather input on the pathway proposal. State officials will decide whether to add the bike and pedestrian lane during the bridge rehabilitation.

That decision will be made by the end of the year. The deadline for providing comments is Nov. 30.

The rehabilitation work will start in 2013 and is expected to cost $275 million to $350 million.

Heavy traffic moving next to bikers, runners and walkers is a “recipe for catastrophe,” Lt. William Brown said, while reading a statement from the sheriff. “I don’t care what kind of safety barrier you put up.”

That concrete barrier – to separate the path from northbound traffic in the least-costly option – would be nearly four feet high. The fencing on the outside of the 14-foot pathway would be nine feet tall.

The five alternatives being considered by the DOT range in cost from $9.5 million to eliminate a northbound traffic lane and construct the bike path on the east side of the existing bridge to $95.5 million to build an elevated path 17 feet above the current roadway. In between, the options include $27.5 million to build the path in the center of the bridge and $84.4 million to build a separate bridge 30 feet east of the existing span.

Connecting the pathway to the support structure now in place would cost $76.4 million.

This rendering shows the $9.4 million option for a bike and pedestrian path on the Hoan Bridge.

Opponents objected to the high costs, and the potential loss of a lane for northbound traffic.

In the feasibility study, the DOT reported that reducing northbound traffic to two lanes would drop the flow of traffic to an unacceptable level, based on 2035 traffic projections. The details shared Monday night showed that the congestion would occur one hour a day, the 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. peak, and were based on a 60 mph free-flow over the bridge.

The more costly alternatives preserve six lanes of traffic in both directions on the Hoan, which is projected to carry 58,500 vehicles a day in 2035.

“To take out a lane for cars is ridiculous,” said Sandra Smith, a Bay View resident.

Smith also estimated that the high winds and nasty weather would keep bikers off the bridge roughly seven months of the year.

Advocates argue that more and more residents commute by bicycle, and ride even through the winter. In addition, they content the bike lane over the Hoan would provide a safer option for cyclists riding from Bay View to Downtown, and serve as a tourist attraction.

“People discount that, but it adds a whole dimension you can’t ignore,” said Robert Austin, of Shorewood. “This is a huge opportunity that isn’t going to come through again.”

In something of a counterpoint to Clark’s public opposition, Craig Mastantuono explained why Milwaukee Board of Harbor Commissioners recently voted unanimously in support of adding a bike and pedestrian path the bridge over the Port of Milwaukee.

The commission recognizes that commercial operations and recreational activities don’t have to be mutually exclusive, said Mastantuono, a harbor commissioner.

In addition to the Harbor Commission, the Milwaukee County Long-Range Lakefront Planning Committee has endorsed the addition of a lane for bikers and pedestrians on the two-mile bridge.

Wish I could have stayed for all the questions/comments...did anyone ask if the 9.8m for option 1 was in addition to the cost for redecking that lane or if it included that work which will be done regardless of the bike lane?

The message from Clark sounded odd, saying that bikes and traffic dont mix..then bikes should be seperate from cars behind a barrier??? That is what a bike lane is...oh well it was nice to see people expressing differing opinions peacefully.

The DOT rep was very clear on that point. All of the cost estimates for the bike lane alternatives are in addition to the cost of the primary rehabilitation work. It was asked during the meeting, and I asked again after. The report also seems to support that.

There is PLENTY of room to accommodate both motorized traffic and bikes.

The Burrad Bridge in Vancouver is a good point of comparison for the naysayers. It was not built with bike lanes but now has two. It also has a separate sidewalk for pedestrian traffic. And it has 5 lanes for motorized vehicles. All in a bridge just 71 feet wide (compared to the Hoan at 108 feet).

How do they do this? The Burrad uses 10' wide lanes while the Hoan uses 12' lanes. 12' lanes are quite wide for the volume of traffic on the Hoan. If extra room is needed (which it isn't), 11' lanes (or even 10' with a reduction in the speed limit) would still accommodate just as much motorized traffic.

Last year the Burrad saw more than 1 million bike trips across it. When the temps drop below freezing? More than 1500 bike trips a day were still ridden over the bridge (in fact more bike trips occur on clear days with below freezing temps than on days with rain and temps in the 40s).

Excuses about the grade being too steep (a max of 4.2% is hardly steep), the wind (average and peak wind speeds higher on other bridges with bike...none ever blown away), the length (really? it's too long?) have been shown to be just that. Excuses. None is a reason to shelve this bridge improvement.

There is simply no valid reason not to added bike lanes to the Hoan (unless your last name is Walker, Clarke, or Koch that is).

The Hoan is an interstate. To qualify as an interstate, the route must have 12' lanes. This is done due to the fact that many interstates are used by the trucking industry for oversized/overweight routes. Our economy needs these routes to move manufactured goods. If they could not use the Hoan, then most likely these companies would be forced to either relocate or use local streets. The 12' standard is not based on volume, it is for the trucking industry. You try driving a 9' wide semi truck in a 10' lane @ 40 mph. As a person with a CDL, I can tell you it is NOT easy.

Second, putting up a speed limit sign to reduce the speeds will do little. Just because a sign is put up, does not mean people will follow it. If anything, due to the lower speed limit you will still get some people doing 60 and others doing let's say 40 (if this is the new speed limit). This variability in speeds causes safety issues. There are less crashes if the speed limit is set at a speed that 85% of people feel comfortable driving at. A speed that is too high or too low tends to lead to more crashes due to excessive maneuvers.

Third, Vancover is on the coast. The temperatures there are much milder than they are here. They average high in the winter is 50 degrees fahrenheit. When they have snow or ice, it melts and does not stick around all winter (I know at higher elevations it does, I have been there).

Fourth, narrow lanes with no shoulders are dangerous. On the east coast, many of the lanes are narrower than 12' with no shoulders (These were grandfathered into the interstate system since they were built before it) and see higher fatality and serious injury rates. That is the reason why the federal government has the 12' standard with a wide shoulder.

As for the grades and wind, I agree, these seem to be less of a factor. But there are many reasons for the 12' lane widths and it is very doubtful the federal government would agree to an exemption for the standard.

None of the alternatives reduce the width of the traffic lanes. They would be 12 feet. The shoulders, both on the median and off the outside lane, would meet the Federal Highway design standards, in the alternatives that eliminate one northbound traffic lane.The feasibility study has some interesting information on speeds on the bridge: even during the summer construction motorists averaged nearly 55 mph.

huggybear, 12-foot lanes are the standard but they are NOT required. As you noted, some east coast interstates have narrower lanes, but--in at least one case--these lanes were narrowed well AFTER the interstate highway system was built.

In New York State, the Tappan Zee Bridge--carrying I-87 and I-287 over the Hudson River--has lanes as narrow as 11'2" and that lane configuration was established in the 1980's--well AFTER the Interstate highway system was built. (The Tappan Zee Bridge was built in the 1950's as a 4-lane bridge; it was later expanded to 6 lanes and, in the 1980's, to 7 lanes. The bridge roadway itself was never widened; the lanes were painted narrower and the shoulders were removed.)

I never said the federal government would not agree to it, I said it would be doubtful. As for safety on the Tappan Zee Bridge, I read a case study about that years ago and it was stated, with the shoulders removed and lanes narrowed crashes went up.

The same procedure was done on 94 in Minneapolis after the 35W bridge collapse. Four 11 foot lanes with no shoulder instead of 3 lanes with a shoulder. The last I have heard, safety issues have gone up due to the elimination of the shoulder.

When the consumption of fossil fuels is subsidized at a rate more than 6 times higher than alternatives, $10 mil to reduce traffic, reduce road wear, reduce oil imports, improve air quality, and improve the fitness of those smart enough to use it is an absolute bargain.

Plus, historically for every $1 we have spent on bicycle infrastructure our economy now reaps a $4 return annually. If I borrowed $1000 from you one time, but then told you I'd pay you $4000 yearly after that, what would you do?

What is insane to me is how come the Dot is not using Summerfest grounds path on the north portion of the lakefront which we spent a ton of money on, and then connect it to the southern portion of the road underneth the Hoan Bridge....I realize you have the river to cross on that one section, but you have the rest of infrasture already in place....for those wondering yes there is a road underneth the bridge that serves for the Port of Mke terminals and you see tons of people fishing in that area....

Or perhaps a hand winched ferry. All the motorists opposed to the bike lane on the bridge can sign up to man the ferry. They get their wish of keeping the bridge to themselves and cyclists get a nice boat ride.

@atomicisback they have that idea in Saugatuck, MI it works great...I actually wrote to the DOT and suggested that item to them as I have taken that ferry it's a dollar per person...it's a total tourist/fun thing to do the only problem is what do you do in the winter months you would need some sort of a ice breaker...I also told the dot that for ligthing under the bridge you could save a lot of money but attaching the lights to the supports on the bridge rather than waste buying all those MKE harp lights on a pole. You could just attached the top of the harp light or something like that onto the footings of the bridge itself and have it shine onto the road. The road right now on the southern portion is a little rough in spots but it's a cool ride and it's the same road that serves the Lake Express Ferry. http://www.south-haven-to-saugatuck.com/Saugatuck-chain-ferry.html I know it sounds i'm breaking from my conservative roots but i'm trying to find a cost efficent way to compromise costs, and still make the bike riders happy, and I think it's a totally underused assest of mke which is the Port of MKE that really is overlooked....

As I understand it, the study predicted that removing one northbound lane would would cause no problem until 2035, and even after 2035 would just prevent everybody from driving 60 mph for one hour each week day. But the speed limit is only 50 mph, so there is no reason for the bridge to support 60 mph traffic.

Furthermore, even if there is one hour of slower traffic each weekday, the bridge would still be uncongested 97% of the time (163 out of 168 hours every week).

I think they should remove one northbound lane for now and see how the new bike lane is used. If, as critics claim, it is barely used, remove it if and when traffic on the remaining two lanes becomes jammed. Until then, bikers and walkers can use the third northbound lane more than cars could.

Anybody that can even remotely promote spending money for this. at this time, is just plain nuts. If there is really a big interest in this start a not for profit, raise the money and have it built. This attitude of the children demanding everything be given to them is over.

Currently the Hoan with three lanes is operating at Level of Service C. With two lanes, it is predicted today, it would be operating at Level of Service D or E. E is unacceptable as it causes a delay in traffic. By 2035 the level of service would be at F. This is the failure of traffic flow with extensive bumper to bumper congestion. Even with today's traffic, having two lanes is predicted to be unacceptable to the goals of having a level of service D or better on milwaukees interstates. (This was all in the executive summary of the report)

huggybear28 What was explained at the meeting was that they believe by 2035 for 1 hour per day, traffic might slow to 47mph (or LOS F as they called it). For 1 hour a day people might essentially have to essentially drive the speed limit!

From Wikipedia:Level Of Service F describes a breakdown in vehicular flow. Flow is forced; every vehicle moves in lockstep with the vehicle in front of it, with frequent slowing required. Technically, a road in a constant traffic jam would be at LOS F.

You must have misheard the presenter. If the roadway was at LOS F, it would be traveling at 5-10mph, not 46 mph. 46mph on the Hoan would be considered level of service C since the speed limit is 50 mph.

There does seem to be a contradiction in the DOT study. It does say level of service F, with estimated speeds of 48 to 50 mph, depending on the increase in traffic by 2035. I'm going to try to sort that out for a future post.

I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with the Third Ward, but there is an old rail line west of the Summerfest Grounds. This rail line was primarily north and south and went past Veterans Park before turning Northeast. This rail line is already used for the Oak Leaf trail. There is an abandoned Swing Railroad Bridge on the Milwaukee River near the corner of S. Water and East Florida Street. This could be used for a bike path. I've created a Google Maps preview of what it would look like.

Here is the link: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=201882482887070082411.0004b1c02a406dbfe87da

Key word is 'abandoned" that old swing bridge is left open for a reason, a bike bridge would have to be able to move or tall enough to allow sailboats under. Also there is plans to use the old rail grade but it will dump back onto the street and use the bridge near Erie and Young

This rail bridge appears to be part of the old Northwestern line to Chicago. It saw passenger service into the mid- to late-1960's. Passenger service disappeared when Northwestern closed its train station (at the east end of Wisconsin Avenue--I think the front door was on Cass just south of Wisconsin) and moved its trains to the Milwaukee Road station (current Amtrak station) on St Paul.

Even if the bridge is still operable, somebody would have to pay for its maintenance and for a bridgekeeper who would open and close the bridge for ships.The bridge would have to remain open (and impassible for bikes) whenever there was no bridgekeeper on duty. Over the 25-year lifespan of the bike lane (until around 2035 when the Hoan's 3rd northbound lane might actually be needed for northbound vehicular traffic), these costs might approach the cost of adding the lane to the Hoan.

Please don't take another driving lane away. That was already done on 1st Street. Even in GOOD biking weather (which is only about half the year here in WI), I have seen very few people using those bike lanes. Meanwhile, traffic is backed up at every light because it is only one lane each way now. People need to be able to get in and out of downtown from the south smoothly and efficiently.

Clarke is pandering to AM hate talk radio clowns. Before he makes an *ss of himself he ought to do his homework and research every other major bridge span to learn that bikers and car traffic can co-exist.

I love to bike, and support logical expansion of city bike lanes. But the cheapest pricetag for this is crazy. I could buy $26 cab ride for 100 bicyclers per day every single day of the year for 10 years for $9.5 Million.

Keep cycling Milwaukee, but take the street and lobby for improvements there!